JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. As a result of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna on 14.06.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2015, the appellant-convict has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Crime was registered on the basis of dying declaration given by Meerabai on 25.12.2014, wherein she has alleged that she was married to appellant husband 10 years back. That, on 25.12.2014 she requested appellant husband to help her in cooking meals. Getting enraged by the same, appellant allegedly poured kerosene from a bottle and ignited her. In the backdrop of her said dying declaration, crime was registered by PW6 PSI Dnyaneshwar Sanap. While undergoing treatment, Meerabai succumbed to 63% burns. Appellant was arrested, investigation was carried out by PW11 PSI Sunil Gopinwar and on finding sufficient material, he was chargesheeted and made to face trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who on framing charge, recording evidence, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides, reached to a finding that accused is responsible for the homicidal burns and thereby held him guilty and convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellant:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment under challenge is patently perverse and illegal. He would submit that though there were allegations of ill-treatment, said charge has not been proved. Inviting our attention to the two dying declarations, he would submit that the same are not voluntary and consistent and not inspiring confidence and therefore, the same ought not to have been relied by learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence.

4. He pointed out that prosecution had utterly failed to establish on what count alleged incident took place. Inviting our attention to the testimonies of relatives, more particularly grandparents, it is submitted that neither of them has supported the accusations raised by prosecution. Moreover, according to him, they have reached after the occurrence and have no information. He would emphasis that in spite of these witnesses claiming about oral dying declaration and in spite of claiming to be accompanying deceased to the hospital and to be with her in the hospital, they have not lodged any FIR. Resultantly, it is submitted that there is no material whatsoever about how deceased suffered burns.

5. He would submit that case was set up by prosecution that while deceased was cooking, appellant allegedly poured kerosene. However, he submitted that scene of occurrence panchanama is silent about any cooking appliances or utensils at the scene of occurrence. Thus, it is submitted that false case has been built at the instance of relatives. Learned trial court ought to have correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by prosecution. According to him, law on dying declaration has not been applied by learned trial court and thus, he prays for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction.

On behalf of the State:

6. Refuting the above submissions of false implication and perverse judgment, learned APP would submit that there are two dying declarations and the same are voluntary and inspiring confidence. Deceased Meerabai had particularly named husband for setting her on fire. He would submit that she had merely requested him to help her in preparing meals and accused, who was under influence of liquor, got annoyed and poured kerosene and ignited her. That, both the dying declarations are recorded promptly and even the authorities who have recorded the dying declarations and the medical experts who have issued certificate of fitness, are also examined. Their evidence has remained intact. There is no infirmity or discrepancy or variances in their versions. All witnesses have supported the prosecution and thus, it is his contention that, no fault can be found in the judgment under challeng